Friday, March 31, 2006
"Threat to assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas Texas, November 22, 1963..."
A Nov 17, 1963 FBI telex details J. Edgar Hoover's cynical request to maintain updates through "logical racial hate group informants to determine if any basis for threat..." Note the reference to a planned assassination plot by a militant segregationist group [the Klan], which had led to the cancellation of Kennedy's trip to Miami, Florida days earlier.
The illusion of consensus or fact is easily attained by a monopolized press. Only five CEOs now control everything you hear and see, and in 1963, it was three. In the 1960s, the Ku Klux Klan had led uprisings and riots which prompted federal troops to enter the south. Despite unchecked terrorism and political killings throughout the south, and Klan death threats which led to Kennedy's cancellation of a Miami visit on Nov 9, 1963; despite threats which outlined, in precise detail, the Dallas plot of Nov. 22 1963.... the Klan escaped scrutiny.
Why You're in the Dark....
Only five CEOs control what you see and hear. Mapped layout of the US media. Who owns what explains why tv and radio never deserved the public trust. (Click thumbnails to enlarge)
The widespread and affiliated agency, i.e. high-level Illuminist cabals President Adams described, has this to say about the press: s: "What is the part played by the press today? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties...Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies., in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.... All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions --aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical. . . Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will in fact follow the flag which we hang out for them..."
"Capital... must be free to establish a monopoly of industry and trade.... This freedom will give political force to those engaged in industry, and that will help to oppress the people."
More on the Warren Commission's Worshipful Master of the Laws of Physics.
The Spurious Threat of Civil War Cited by Johnson Apologists for the Concealment.
Who Gained by Helping Lyndon Johnson.
How the Washington Post Censors the News.
Specter's Role: Protect Johnson and Segregationist Masons Used in the JFK Assassination
"...He says maybe you shot too fast because I know they didn't want a shot coming from the front...they tried to put everything from the back side."
James E. Files, commenting on Charles Nicolletti's criticism of the hit on Kennedy.
The Zapruder Film: This film, which Specter and the Warren Commission tried desperately to keep from the American public, is the most chilling proof of of Specter's impossible trajectory. The force of the fatal head shot thrusts Kennedy's head backward, which means he was facing the shooter. What Jackie Kennedy is doing, as she leaves her seat, is attempting to recover a piece of her husband skull and brain. At Parkland Hospital, still in shock, doctors noticed she was still holding a piece of the recovered tissue. To download the Windows Media format, right click here to save.
The Worshipful Master of the Laws of Physics? Sen. Arlan Specter, above, a freemason, Pa. Coppe Mitchell Lodge No. 605, now Scottish Rite. Suppressed all evidence of multiple shooters that would challenge the Warren Commission, Specter remains the fiercest proponent of the long discredited magic bullet theory which insists on the trajectory of a shooter from the "back side." To this end, Specter has labored tirelessly to suppress physical evidence and the testimony of key witnesses who handled the body and challenged the Lone Gunman Theory by contradicting Specter's insulting assertion of an impossible exit wound.
In fact, numerous witness reported that their testimony was creatively edited to contradict their own written testimony.imony.
It Was Johnson Revisiting the Lyndon Johnson Tapes. The only mystery in the Kennedy assassination is why Johnson was never indicted for it: why Mac Wallace's fingerprint in the sniper's nest connects Johnson directly to the assassination. Video includes phone taps of Johnson discussing Kennedy's murder with J. Edgar Hoover, John Conally, and Ramsey Clark between Nov 1963 and 1967.
Bill Hicks on the JFK Assassination Yes, a few words to remind us about Artlen Specter, the infamous Magic Bullet's creatorreator. (There is no statue of limitation on murder, and we haven't forgotten, Arlen) More on Bill Hicks.
The Worshipful Master of the Laws of Physics
Arlen Specter. Triumph of the Swill. Here he is formulating a Magic Bullet Theory to protect President Johnson and the segregationist masons, the Scottish Rite in particular, who had orchestrated the assassination. They were also key members of the Warren Commission
Concealing the Throat Wound
Dr. Malcom Perry, one of Kennedy's attending surgeons at Parkland Memorial Hospital, noted there "was an entrance wound below his Adam's apple." Later, the Warren Commission, faced with yet more evidence of multiple shooters, would attempt to deny this entrance wound existed, offering the implausible contention that it was a tracheotomy....on a man that was dead on arrival. Indeed, there was no swelling or discoloration on Kennedy's face, indicating he died instantly.
Specter's Magic Bullet Defies the Laws of Physics. Isn't that neat?
In this diagram from the the Clay Shaw trial, aside from the impossible trajectory of the bullet was the condition of the pristine "stretcher bullet" which was perfectly unmarked; unlike any bullet that would have shattered or warped when striking bone.
King's Bullet Obeyed Laws of Physics
Here is the bullet that killed Martin Luther King, Jr. This bullet struck only one man and obeyed the laws of physics. Contrast this bullet with the one on the right. According to Specter- not only did it strike bone but it went through two people before emerging perfectly intact.
Specter believes you are a fucking tard and afraid to challenge authority, such as the establishment media media or his cronies. If you believe his theory, he is right.
Johnson did this
Kennedy's Missing Brain
The whereabouts of Kennedy's brain remain a mystery, and it's a shame too, because not only did it hold bullet fragments, it conclusively proved trajectory. It was last seen in a steel bucket, preserved in a formaldehyde solution in Admiral Calvin Galloway' cabinet in Bethesda Hospital, Maryland. This was critical evidence, because it not only verified the trajectory of the fatal head shot, but through bullet slivers which were found in the first set of x-rays taken in Parkland Memorial Hospital, proved more than one weapon was used. At least two bullet fragments in Kennedy's face betrayed the presence of mercury loaded ammunition, traces of which were found on brain tissue in what are now missing slides.
JFK's Casket Dumped at Sea
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bronze casket used to transport President Kennedy's body from Dallas to Washington was dropped from a military plane into the ocean two years after he was killed, according to assassination documents. Kermit L. Hall, a member of the now-defunct Assassination Records Review Board, said Friday that documents to be released Tuesday by the National Archives show that the casket was flown several miles off the Maryland-Delaware coast in early 1965 and dumped in an area where the military discards unstable and outdated weapons and ammunition. The reasons for the disposal aren't clear, but it fuels speculation among assassination researchers that it was discarded to hide foul play. play..
Associated Press, March 28, 1999
Nixon in Dallas
Dallas Morning News, Nov. 22, 1963
According to Johnson's mistress, Madeleine Brown, one of the Warren Commission members, director John J. McCloy (CIA), actually met with Johnson, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, and Richard Nixon the night prior to the assassination. (Nixon was also in Dallas on the day of the assassination.)
""Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be very high."
CIA Assassination Manual
"...a) The precision rifle. In guarded assassination, a good hunting or target rifle should always be considered as a possibility. Absolute reliability can nearly always be achieved at a distance of one hundred yards. In ideal circumstances, the range may be extended to 250 yards. Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be very high.... "
CIA Instructional Guide for Political Assassinations
".....However, there are many cases in which firearms are probably more efficient than any other means. These cases usually involve distance between the assassin and the subject..."
*Note: Link above opens to web image of posted, and since removed CNN page. Links therein inactive; please refer to National Security Archives for original document images. Related links in the Cold War series:
The CIA Role in Chile's Military Coup
CIA Manual for Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare
The Sick Obsession with the "Lone Gunman" Theory
Even as President Kennedy's limo sat in Parkland Memorial Hospital, Johnson ordered the Secret Service and FBI agents to wash out the vehicle, destroying critical evidence of multiple gunmen; particularly bullet slivers and slugs from rifles other than Oswald's alleged weapon. Even bullet holes in the chassis which betrayed tell-tale impossible trajectories to fit the Lone Gunman were repaneled and refurbished at Johnson's orders.
Some who were allegedly provided false credentials by Johnson himself, who was in charge of security that day in Dallas. This criminal evidence tampering, which would have led to the immediate arrest of any other suspect in a similar situation, was dutifully ignored by the Warren Commission. sion.
Manifest Efforts to Destroy Evidence Challenging Specter's Deceptive Theory
The windshield to Kennedy's limousine is a case in point. The angle of the hole in this windshield could only have come from the front of the vehicle. A shot that hit the metal frame frame atop the windshield. At least four shots were fired that missed the president and governor. During the Johnson administration, the limo's windshield was stored in the White House basement. Any evidence pointing to someone other than the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, would have insured the collapse of the coup, and the immediate scrutiny of ringleader Johnson, conspirators Hoover, Warren Commission member John J. McCoy and former CIA Director Allen Dulles.
Let's have a long and objective look at the man who presently judges our Supreme Court judges. It's not a pretty picture. It is Arlen Specter, the hero of the Washington Post that promulgated the findings of the most discredited and corrupt murder investigation in American history- The Warren Commission, which even Nixon dismissed as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind". It was created by the number one suspect in President Kennedy's assassination, vice president Lyndon Johnson, who would not be on the ticket in 1964, who was about to be prosecuted for the murder of Texas agricultural agent Henry Marshall in 1961. Among those who now concede Johnson was the lynchpin of this segregationist Masonic coup of 1963 is Barr McClellan, his personal lawyer.
According to Johnson's mistress, Madeleine Brown, one of the Warren Commission members, director John J. McCloy (CIA), actually met with Johnson, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, and Richard Nixon the night prior to the assassination. Nixon was also in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Here we have eyewitness, credible evidence the Warren Commission was formed before the assassination. Actually, we have had it since the 60s. But your friends at the Washington Post and similar news assets believes you don't need to know this. Or perhaps don't want to know this.
In 1963, anti-Civil Rights, anti-Catholic segregationist Masons numbered over 5 million. Of these, many were in high office, particularly members of the Scottish Rite, whose members include segregationist Trent Lott, Fritz Hollings, Sen. Strom Thurmond and Sen. Robert Byrd, the latter a Democrat who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As you may recall, these segregationist masons had a presidential candidate in Alabama Gov. George Wallace, and at their disposal they had a terrorist branch called the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, through the protection of the Scottish Rite, the Klan has acted with impunity in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. (The Scottish Rite, in fact, created the Klan soon after the Civil War.) Even SR member Sen. Byrd was a high level Klansmen, a Klan recruiter, a Kleagle. Nixon's speech writer, Pat Buchanan, was so fiercely segregationist it became a White House joke.
In 1963, at least two Supreme Court Justices, Hugo Black and Earl Warren, were members of the Klan. FBI records reveal that Chief Justice Warren, in fact, was a Klan leader in Bakersfield, CA. It was for this reason Johnson chose him to lead the Warren Commission, because the inherent conflict of interest would tie his hands. Exposing the Klan's role would expose his own past, hitherto concealed, and seriously threaten his right to remain on the Supreme Court on 14th Amendment grounds. The Klan, at the time, was reviled by most of the nation and even many in the South. Ironically, Warren had gone a long way in distancing himself from the Klan. In the 50s, it was his court that desegregated the schools in Brown vs. The Board of Education, a ruling which was the very thing the segregationists despised Kennedy for defending.
Warren's spurious objective in protecting Johnson, some have noted, was to prevent a civil war between the segregationists and the rest of America. But if this were true, he would have exposed the Washington segregationist cabals that were willing to risk civil war, thereby negating their political influence as criminal conspiracy charges would be leveled on a scale unseen in American history.
He didn't expose the cabals, however, because he was a member. Warren was Scottish Rite. Just like Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, John J. McCloy, etc.
That segregationist masons were a powerful force in Washington DC is without question, but they were also powerful outside of it. In the broadcast and print media, closet segregationist Masons were overwhelming. They owned the three major networks of the time- ABC, CBS, and NBC; and "liberal" papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. As such, for advancement or sheer bootlicking, editors and broadcasters and were more than happy to print stories dismissing Johnson's possible role in the assassination, however obvious.
Knowledge is Power. Use it
No one likes to think their own government is capable of such profound obscenities, much less that they have done it unchecked for so long. But ignoring the problem will give you the government you deserve. Maybe you think you have no power, but you do.
You don't have to buy from GE, Disney, or Viacom, or any of the products advertised on their propaganda organs, e.g. NBC, CBS, and ABC. You choose to. You own stock in these companies, you don't have to accept CEOs bound by the Mason's cable-tow- you can unseat them. (Look what they did to Enron.) You have the power of the purse.
To these men, you are the "profane" non-mason that number in the vast majority of Americans, and if not, you are the lower ranking masonic base of the feudal pyramid, appeased by secret perks and flattery, that will never advance to any degree beyond that of a muzzled servant; bound lifelong in servile obedience to masters known and unknown; for ends had you known from the beginning, you would recoil in horror and disgust.
Like the Harlot on the Beast drunk with the blood of the saints and prophets, they believe you cannot touch them, that they will never know grief. They believe that they are a sovereign nation unto themselves, and their authority exceeds the Constitution's. But is this confidence truly warranted? Actually, it is anything but true. All of this immunity and power depends on your not knowing its true face, and now you know it.
You have a trump card.
You now know who they are. You know what they can do, and what they have done. And most of all, you know they are in power because you put them there, and now that you know at what cost, you can also remove them.
Dems and GOP: Serve Same Ends- how and why they unite to conceal the assassins...
If you are one to label yourself a liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, the following should give you pause for thought. All scientific methodology depends on experiments that can be reproduced, and here is a test you can try for yourself. Is our press the greatest threat to our peace, education, and political integrity?
The surest test of a monopolized or controlled media is an absence of true diversity. If you read the BBC news feeds, or Yahoo, or Google, they will often point to the same stories. The many papers linked within, as well, are going to point to AP, Reuters or UPI source feeds. That's why all of these news portals are basically carrying the same stories. Look at the left hand pane of this blog with the news feeds to Yahoo, Google, Reuters, AP. Notice how the same stories keep popping up? And usually, this stories are of little or no relevance to you because the primary purpose of the print and broadcast media is to distract, inflame or mislead the public. Informing you is incidental.
John Quincy Adams, in his Address to the People of Massachusetts, said of the Masonic press:
"I saw slander organize into a secret, widespread and affiliated agency..."
Even in his time, it had become a threat. The role of the press in undermining republics or protecting the architects of tyranny can not be overstated here. One infamous protocol describing the means of their controlling the media rings so true as to bring a chill up your spine, particularly when you consider corporate cabals such as AOL-Time Warner ((CNN), Viacom (CBS), General Electric (NBC) or Disney (ABC):
"What is the part played by the press today? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties...
"Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them...."All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions --aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical. . . Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will in fact follow the flag which we hang out for them..."Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it. . . We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. "Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses -- no more."
If indeed, a cabal of criminals can buy up press assets of all possible complexions to direct your thinking into their own opinions, how can you tell if what you're reading now isn't propaganda too?
Simple. They will all have this in common: if they cannot avoid discussing it altogether, they will avoid discussing freemasonry in a negative light.
These are protocols written by masons, and the easiest way to determine the integrity of a newspaper or broadcast media is to see their reaction when questioned on the mere existence of a Masonic press. Like the mason's seal on the dollar bill, a Masonic press is self-evident. But unlike the seal, it is self-evident BY WHAT IS NOT SEEN. If they deny partisan, secret collusion amongst editors and broadcasters is rampant today, you know they cannot be trusted; either for the outright lie, journalistic incompetence or pure gullibility. If they deny its power or influence, you likewise know you have been lied to, because if there was no Masonic press, Lyndon Johnson would have been arrested the same day Kennedy was shot. Why? The Billy Sol Estes Affair would have dominated the news stories, because a grand jury was now hearing evidence that Johnson was responsible for the 1961 murder and cover-up of Texas federal agricultural agent Henry Marshall. Johnson would be suspect number one, particularly after he destroyed evidence in a presidential assassination by immediately ordering the president's limo washed and refurbished. Why did he do it? because that limo held key evidence- slugs and trajectories that pointed to multiple trajectories, and hence, multiple shooters.
In the same protocols we read: "We must compel...action in the direction favored by our widely-conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called 'Great Power' -- the Press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands."
The Great Power, the Masonic Press, isn't a fantastic concept at all. It's here now, and it is the aforementioned handful of companies we know as mediaopolies.
So the question remains.....
What is it about obstructing justice in a presidential assassination that makes Specter, as lead investigator in the Warren Commission, especially qualified to chair the Senate Judiciary panel that will grill Supreme Court judges? After all, that Johnson killed Kennedy is an open secret in Washington DC. They know that enough Americans know the truth about Johnson to represent a true threat, but as long as it's kept out of the news, they also know they won't have to answer for the silence that marks complicity. It is an open secret like the one that we can never win the drug war on a prohibition model that is always linked to massive spikes in organized crime and political corruption.
I think the Washington Post owes us an answer to that. What makes Specter exceptionally qualified, as a man of no character, to judge men of superior character? Those of superior character qualifies just about 99% of the population, unless you also have blood on your hands and advanced your career in politics through it.
Incidentally, you may be interested in the phone calls Johnson made to Washington Post columnist Joseph Alsop right after the assassination as efforts were made to create a truly independent commission.
Johnson calls the Washington Post
Dare we challenge the Post? Oh yes. Yes we do.
Now, kind reader, this is no call for anarchy. This is a call for you, as a voter, to search your conscience.
This particular American was murdered in cold blood, in front of women and children. He was a war hero, he was also our president.
The men who gained from this murder are not all dead, some remain in power, some know all the players: for instance, former President Gerald Ford, a member of the Warren Commission whom is also Scottish Rite. Another is Sen. Arlen Specter. But they are not the only ones alive, or the only ones protected by the establishment press.
You wouldn't vote for a murderer if you had the choice. You have that choice.
The first step must be taken by Pennsylvania constituents. But it must be taken.
Knowledge is Power. Use it
One of many curious Lincoln-Kennedy parallels is that their Vice Presidents were surnamed Johnson; Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson. But perhaps the most salient Johnson parallel was a legacy of glaring complicity in each respective presidential assassination. As a result, both served only one term: one was impeached, and one refused to run again in 1968.
Though Lyndon Johnson was the lynchpin that made the segregationist Masonic coup possible, he had his own reasons for agreeing to the assassination plot- self-preservation. Kennedy planned to drop him from the ticket in '64 and leave him open to prosecution for mafia ties and a federal murder charge in Texas (Henry Marshall). The coup, like Jim Garrison detailed in the Clay Shaw trial of 1967, was a plan based on an earlier CIA plot ("Operation Mongoose", et al) to kill Castro in a motorcade but switched to target JFK, and built around Johnson as enmity grew between Johnson and the Kennedys. Tellingly, Johnson's Secret Service code name on the day of the assassination was "Volunteer". Indeed, for the coup to work, Johnson had to volunteer. Only he, as VP, could immediately assume the presidential powers necessary to conceal the assassination; only he could assume the executive, federal and military authority to intimidate and eliminate witnesses; and once he was above suspicion, he had the right to empanel the mock investigative body that was designed solely to clear him: the long discredited Warren Commission.
Once in office, Johnson was continually pressured by segregationist Masonic generals and leaders to blame Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union for the murder. This wasn't really an option though, because the KGB had proof Johnson was responsible. Instead, he gave them the Vietnam War as a consolation prize, a battle with Communists that unlike Cuba or Russia- have nuclear arms to defend themselves. Segregationist sympathizers like FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, himself a SR 33rd degree mason, falsely assumed the Civil Rights movement was a Communist conspiracy, and saw the fight against Communism as a critical second front against the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Hoover, in fact, openly circulated propaganda linking Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. to the Communists.
According to Johnson's mistress, Madeleine Brown, one of the Warren Commission members, director John J. McCloy (CIA), actually met with Johnson, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, and Richard Nixon the night prior to the assassination. Nixon was also in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Here we have eyewitness, credible evidence the Warren Commission was formed before the assassination. Actually, we have had it since the 60s. But your friends at the Washington Post or any other commercial news asset believes you don't need to know this. Or perhaps don't want to know this.
In 1963, anti-Civil Rights, anti-Catholic segregationist Masons numbered over 5 million. Of these, many were in high office, particularly members of the Scottish Rite, whose members include segregationist Trent Lott, Fritz Hollings, Sen. Strom Thurmond and Sen. Robert Byrd, the Democrat who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As you may recall, these segregationist masons had a presidential candidate in Alabama Gov. George Wallace, and at their disposal they had a terrorist branch called the Ku Klux Klan that acted with virtual impunity in the 60s. (The Scottish Rite, in fact, created the Klan soon after the Civil War.) Even SR member Sen. Byrd was a high level Klansmen, a Klan recruiter, a Kleagle. At least two Supreme Court Justices, Hugo Black and Earl Warren, were members of the Klan. Chief Justice Warren, in fact, was a Klan leader in Bakersfield, CA. It was for this reason Johnson chose him to lead the Warren Commission, because it would implicate Klansmen he was oath-bound, for life, to protect. Even as a former Klansmen.
That these men were a powerful force in Washington DC is without question, but they were also powerful outside of it. In the broadcast and print media, closet Masonic segregationists were overwhelming. They owned the three major networks of the time- ABC, CBS, and NBC; and "liberal" papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. As such, for advancement or sheer bootlicking, editors and broadcasters and were more than happy to print stories dismissing Johnson's possible role in the assassination, however obvious. In their view, Johnson was a Brother mason and they were oath-bound to protect him according to the Rules of the Old Charge, and the practice among members of international freemasonry.
No one likes to think their own government is capable of such profound obscenities, much less that they have done it unchecked for so long. But ignoring the problem will give you the government you deserve. Maybe you think you have no power, but you do.
You don't have to buy from Westinghouse, Disney, or Viacom, or any of the products advertised on their propaganda organs, e.g. NBC, CBS, and ABC. You choose to. You own stock in these companies, you don't have to suffer CEOs bound by the cable-tow of a cabal- you can unseat them. (Look what they did to Enron.) You have the power of the purse.
To these men, you are the "profane" non-masons that number in the vast majority of Americans. You cannot touch them, they will never know grief. They are a sovereign nation unto themselves, and their authority exceeds the Constitution's. But is this confidence truly warranted?
You have a trump card.
You know now who they are. You know what they can do, and what they have done. And most of all, you know they are in power because you put them there, and now that you know at what cost, you can also remove them.
Open Letter to Michael Schiavo by Lisa Guliani
One year has now passed since the world witnessed the widely televised, willful murder of your “wife” Terri Schindler (Schiavo). Here at WING TV, we called the extended, sensationalized mainstream coverage of the horrific starvation/dehydration process you unrelentingly demanded and ultimately achieved, the “death watch”. All through that terrible time, I watched your face intently, Michael. I watched to see if even one drop of compassion, concern, or love would emerge. I watched your face when you talked about your “wife”. I listened to the dispassionate coldness in your voice, and felt deeply the sting of your words.
In amazement and horror, I found myself trembling as your calculated, heartless motivations and agenda became all too evident – and all too real. My stomach roiled, my heart ached, and my brain refused to truly believe that a human being so completely devoid of feeling such as your self really lives and breathes and walks among us. As the long, heart-shredding, excruciating days of Terri’s starvation slowly passed, the media splashed your face all over my TV screen. And every time you appeared, my blood boiled. Although my brain initially pushed the thought away, you finally convinced me of one simple, yet powerful truth. You are pure evil.
You convinced me, Michael. I’ve tried in the year that’s passed to come to terms with the stabbing pain of realization that consumed me during the agonizing “death watch” circus. Time has not allowed me the luxury of forgetting. I am having to deal with another brutal reality as we mark the day you murdered your wife. The reality is that I do not forgive you. I’m told I should forgive you, but my mere human brain refuses. My heart recoils at the very thought. I guess this is something I will have to work out with God. A year has come and gone, and I still can't adequately express in words the repugnance and seething disgust I feel toward you with every cell in my body. The other day I was in a bookstore and there it was, front and center: your “book”. The sight of it made me want to vomit. It disturbed me to the point of fury. God will have to forgive you, Michael, because I simply cannot.How relieved were you when she finally drew her last breath? Did you thank her for dying, you selfish, unfeeling bastard? Are you proud of what you’ve done? Has exploiting Terri even in death paid off as lucratively as you dreamed it would?
Do you ever see her face when you close your eyes at night, Michael? Does she whisper “murderer” in your ear? I hope so.It chills me to live with the fact that I, along with millions of other people around the world, failed to stop you. We allowed this murder to pass. Living with that truth shames me, and will forever haunt me. I can only hope a splinter of conscience haunts you for the rest of your days on this earth, with every step and at every turn in the road, with every breath, every drink of water, and every single crumb you ingest. There has been no justice for Terri Schindler Schiavo, nor for the family she left behind, the ones who genuinely loved her and fought for her life. You have literally gotten away with murder in this life. You know it, I know it, and the world knows it.It is a small comfort to me to know that God also watched and knows what you’ve done. God didn’t save Terri from your brand of evil, but He too will not forget. There is some cosmic lesson here that will be taught, and I do believe, Michael Schiavo, that in time you will be forced to confront the monster you are, the evil you have perpetrated, and the eternal punishment you well deserve. I shudder for your soul, for mine, and for the soul of humanity.
The 'Fear Of Muslims' Conspiracy Theory
Betsy Hart's catch-all explanation for 9/11 questions
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com March 31 2006
Betsy Hart has formulated a catchy and convenient conspiracy theory for why so many people are asking serious questions about what happened on 9/11. We're all scared! Unfortunately, this lethargic leap of logic fails to address the requisition laid forth by Charlie Sheen last week - challenge us on the facts.
Hart was a guest on last week's Hannity and Colmes spot which highlighted Sheen's comments to The Alex Jones Show in which he outlined his serious doubts about the official story of 9/11.
"The threat of Islamic terrorism is so frightening, so unpredictable, so unknowable that in some ways it's easier and more manageable for some folks to think that our government is behind it all," writes Hart in a piece for Scripps Howard News Service.
Well, that explains it all for me! How convenient, now I can restore my unbridled trust in the all-loving government, watch American Idol and go back to sleep!
Perhaps Ms. Hart can explain to us how her theory, as it is presented with no supporting evidence whatsoever, answers the following questions.
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why NORAD completely reversed its standard operating procedure on the day of 9/11?
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why three steel buildings, one that was not hit by a plane, collapsed from fire damage for the first and only time in history?
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why firefighters and WTC workers reported bombs going off inside the towers?
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why several of the named 9/11 hijackers are still alive?
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why Pakistan ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad instructed Ahmad Umar Sheikh to hotwire $100,000 to the alleged 9/11 lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta and why Mahmud Ahmad on the morning of 9/11 was meeting with former clandestine CIA officer and CFR member Rep. Porter Goss and Skull and Bones/CFR member Senator Bob Graham. Does it answer why since September 4th, he had met with top brass at the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House, including Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Joseph Biden and George Tenet?
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why on September 10th 2001 according to Newsweek, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why a record number of 'put' options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th. This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating 'airline stocks set to fly.'
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why a leaked FBI document, 199I WF213589, outlined disgust at a Bush administration directive that succeeded in blocking anti-terrorism investigations related to the bin Laden family and Saudi charities that were front groups for Al-Qaeda?
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer why the secret service allowed President Bush to remain in a known and completely unsecured location amongst hundreds of school children when he could have been a target?
- Does fear of Islamic terrorism answer the thousands of other physical, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence that directly contradicts the official fable of 9/11?
Perhaps Ms. Hart can tell us just where all these fearful Islamic terrorists are? Would we have caught some in the net at Guantanamo Bay? Turns out not to be the case, unless you think delivery drivers, chicken farmers, sack makers and taxi drivers are hell-bent on blowing up stuff.
Would we have caught some from Pakistani street gangs rounding up innocent people and selling them to us for $25,000? Turns out not to be the case unless you think that peasants and farmers who don't even know what or where America is hate us enough to carry out mass murder.
Charlie Sheen invited his detractors to challenge him on the facts. Charlie Sheen challenged his detractors to put the time into researching the facts. Betsy Hart's research consisted of reading Popular Mechanic's 9/11 hit piece, which was a straw man set-up that attributed claims to the 9/11 truth movement that were clearly absurd.
Hart's article has already been subject to one retraction, in which she claimed the Alex Jones Show had e mailed her and stated, ""Maybe your (sic) just another media whore that is looking for ways to make herself richer." Nobody associated with Alex Jones or his show ever sent this e mail.
Scripps Howard News Service carries the retraction at the top of the article. Hart's research is so sloppy that she doesn't even know how to find out who is sending her e mails.
"But reality intervenes, and reality is that Muslim terrorists carried out the fateful assaults of 9/11 thank you, Osama Bin Laden, for admitting exactly that," snarls Hart.
Hart's standard for accepting evidence as credible is the fact that it's released by and is approved of by the government. The same government that lied to us about weapons of mass destruction and a war that has killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
The so-called bin Laden confession tape, a tape mysteriously 'discovered' in a house in Jalalabad, a lucky find for a city with a population of 150,000 people, is very believable....if you also believe that Forrest Gump shook hands with President Kennedy. The fat bin Laden lookalike wears a gold ring, forbidden to Islam, and makes statements totally inconsistent with his other public comments.
Bin Laden's first public statements after 9/11 were carried in an interview with the Pakistani based Ummat newspaper.
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
Does that sound like a confession to you?
Hart's desperation to cling onto her perch on the establishment lackey media peanut gallery is plain to see and she thinks she can do it by upholding with blind obedience the sneering elitist cultural media zeitgeist. However, newspaper readership is plummeting and the mainstream media is dying because it has become synonymous with spin and deception. People are turning to alternative news blogs and websites for the truth.
Hart's fear of Islamic terrorism is only matched by her fear of sinking with the rest of the rats on SSS Lamestream BS - but unlike this vessel Hart's conspiracy theories just don't hold water.
is the link.
*I disagree with some of these words, but it's interesting.
Cwalk: Im not defending Zionist or mainly Jewish Neo Cons in the US govt. or anything like that but I think a lot of people claiming to expose Zionists (Daryl Bradford Smith ...etc) are actually anti-semites (the word "zionist" is just a cover for "jew") and could also be even be govt. disinfo agents: They deliberately try to associate entire 9/11 truth movement with antisemitsm, witch is something bad in the mainstream public and even worse in the disproportionately Jewish influenced media. That helps to bury the truth and 911 to never get out. If things go their way in a couple of years only claiming 911 was inside job will not only be unamerican but also antisemitic. Alex Jones could also be a disinfo agent by associating 911 truth (and generaly terorism truth) with Death Cults, Illuminati, Egyptian Gods...etc
Also his listeners arent actually rocket scientists but mainly rednecks and not very smart people (not all though, i like to listen to him also occasionall) . As long as people who to the mainstream media appear to be crackpots claim 911 conspiracy theory truth will never come out. The only way to get it out and for the media to listen is by people like David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Ray McGovern....etc who have credibility, who do not appear to be conspiracy theorist not be politically biast. I would also count in Mike Ruppert who also appears to be acredible but i'm kinda stopped by his Peak Oil Scare. He claims 911 attacks actually HELPED the US and world from economic collapse. By believing him one not thinks that the biggest problem is we have a govt that kills its own people etc, but something even far worse (stoneage in 5 years time) witch makes Dick Cheney & Co. actually evil heroes who despereately try to "save American way of life" (Rupperts own words pharaprased) from an unstoppabe reality imposed by nature. That does not motivate people to fight the government just makes them sell their SUVs and shakingly prepare for the doomsday.
josh: Very good point. My dad, who is very open minded, did not believe me until I emailed him Jones's paper. That's what did it. I tihnk they are the most credible as far as academic standards go. I really don't think Alex associates it with 'death cults' in the classical way..I really think it's more of him having the mind frame of considering the globalists as a cult, a collective working towards a goal by serving a higher power, using death and destruction to accomplish said goals..JMO. Don't say 'rednecks' aren't very smart. I'm down in Austin were Alex is...Austin is definetly a 'patriot stronghold'...lots of smart people down here. As far as 'zionist' being a cover word for 'jew'...I think your absoluetly right in SOME cases...I've heard Michael Collins Pipers interviews were one of his guests slipped a said "Je..Zionist" and it's also pretty clear in the way the say certain phrases and they way the refer to zionists... but don't be fooled, the A.D.L and other organizations really promte that idea...so be observant. I've heard A.D.L say that 'international bankers' and 'financial interests' is a code word for 'jew'..So that about shows we they are at. I found that funny becasue dosent that just support the stereotype that all jews are involved in money?
9/11 Truth Calling Oprah!An Appeal from TvNewsLIES.org
For more than five years now, the entire mainstream corporate news media apparatus has been controlled by a handful of behind-the-scene power brokers. In all that time there has been a total blackout on any mention, never mind discussion, of the truth behind the events of 9/11.
Despite their credibility and expertise, high-powered and extremely convincing voices of truth have been denied access to the public via the mainstream media. In the years following the attacks of 9/11, a significant number of knowledgeable people have attempted to alert the nation about the mountain of evidence that has been unearthed by their investigations, and which shoots large holes in the ‘official’ version of events sold to an unsuspecting and unquestioning public.
These people include former Bush administration officials, CIA analysts, FBI whistleblowers, scholars, academics, theologians and eye witnesses to the events of that tragic day. Not one of these people has been allowed to present his or her individual and collective conclusions that the Bush administration was either totally negligent or fully complicit or in the events of 9/11.
The media blacklisting of any and all members of the independent 9/11 truth community, no matter how impressive his or her credentials, has resulted in widespread ignorance of the huge number of anomalies and inconsistencies in the official version. No questions have been allowed to be raised, and not one shred of evidence that refutes the official version has been presented to the viewing or reading public anywhere but on the Internet.
Recent events, however, suggest that there may be a breach in this wall of silence. It seems that the only way for the 9/11 truth movement to attract the attention of the public is for well-known individuals in the entertainment arena to come forward and demand the truth.
Sad but true, a large number of Americans believe nothing until they see it on TV! There can be no question about the enormous influence and effect of television broadcasting on public opinion, a very frightening fact in these troubled and dangerous times. It was exactly for that reason that I created TvNewsLIES.org and dedicated these past years to exposing the lies and deception emanating from our broadcast news industry. And that is why I now am calling for help from one of TV’s most popular and respected performers.
Last week we witnessed a five-cent example of how the single TV appearance of a well-known performer, a celebrity if you will, could initiate a terribly important word-of-mouth grass roots movement. The support of one show-biz personality helped the 9/11 research community gain more attention than the efforts of hundreds of less famous people who have been trying for years to gain access to the corporate media.
Last week Charlie Sheen became a legend. He became the first celebrity (to attract the attention of the corporate media) to risk all to ask the common sense questions that formed in his mind when he examined the 9/11 crime scene evidence. Sheen’s brief appearance on CNN’s Show Biz Tonight showed how millions of Americans could be made aware of the convincing and damning evidence that has been hidden from them for years by our corporate criminal media.
Predictably, Mr. Sheen soon became a prime target of people who make the illogical argument that a valid message is not to be accepted if it arrives in even a mildly tainted envelope. As compelling as Mr. Sheen's comments and observations are, there will always be those who ignore his words even as they follow the Sean Hannity illogic of shooting the messenger when you can not defeat the message.
Sorry Charlie, - you will always be a hero to me for your efforts, but what we really need now is a Charlie Sheen heart and head in a bulletproof package. And I think I know who that package is.
I submit to my fellow 9/11 truth seekers and truth bearers that our effort to alert the public will be victorious if Oprah Winfrey gets on board. If we could convince Oprah to provide a platform for presenting the information that is in our possession, we’ll have it made. Oprah has been a champion for so many for so long that we can only hope that she has just half the courage and sense of duty of our new hero, Charlie Sheen.
Oprah Winfrey is the closest thing our generation has to a Walter Cronkite outside the news field. Her credibility and popularity are unmatched. Her words will ring loudly and people pay close attention to her program. And she comes without an iota of challengeable baggage.
Therefore, I am suggesting that a powerful, focused effort be made to inform Ms. Oprah Winfrey of the piles of evidence that give lie to the official story of 9/11. I also suggest that we try to convince this very powerful woman to use her show as a format for that evidence to be presented to the viewing public.
This has to be done carefully. The effort can backfire if a poorly planned, incoherent or unconvincing presentation is made to Ms. Winfrey who can place a nail in the coffin of the truth movement as quickly as she can blow the lid off of the suppression we have experienced.
For starters, here is what I would do if I were to make a presentation to Oprah Winfrey:
1). I would hand her a printed copy of an official news article from an authoritative mainstream source showing that several of the hijack suspects have surfaced ALIVE!
2). I would ask her what she would think if she had a guest on her show whose child had been raped and the following had taken place: A neighbor of the child had written about the need to hire more local police, but had also written that the only way the people in the neighborhood would agree to that would be if there were a crime such as the rape of a child in the neighborhood! What if it also turned out that this neighbor had a long, complex connection to child molesters and it turned out he had vouched for several child molesters so that they could move into the neighborhood. Then I would ask her if she would seriously consider the possibility of that person’s involvement in the crime?
3). I would then explain that this is exactly what happened on 9/11 when the members of PNAC, who wrote about the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" were running drills on 9/11 after George W. Bush had called off all investigations into the Bin Laden family and Al Qaeda.
4). Next, I would implore her to watch the Second Edition of Dylan Avery's DVD, Loose Change. If that doesn’t do it, nothing will.
At this point, unless she has been compromised by the power elite of this nation, Oprah’s own intelligence and humanity would come into play. She could not possibly ignore the evidence if were to be presented to her properly. Then, if she chose to use her incredible power and public integrity, Oprah most probably could be the straw to break the back of the 9/11 cover story. She owns the forum that can bring inordinate attention to this topic. Exposure of the evidence on her show could encourage millions of people to have serious doubts about what they have been told by their government, and to demand answers to the questions that have been raised about the worst attack on our nation in history.
I truly believe that the evidence is so powerful that it will speak for itself. But it has to have an avenue to reach the people of this nation, all of whom have a right to see it and draw their own conclusions.
The ultimate goal would be for Oprah Winfrey to dedicate a week of programming to the evidence that has been collected by the independent 9/11 truth community and that has been kept from public view for all this time.
WARNING: If a gatekeeper goes forward with this and proceeds to make an unintelligible and unconvincing case, this effort will set us back to square one. We don’t want a repeat of the scene in A Few Good Men where Demi Moore's character provokes the judge into adding credibility to the opposition’s argument. Simple is better. The message should focus on the PNAC statement, the drills taking place on that day, the collapse of Building Seven and the still-living accused hijackers. The unstoppable force created by the information flow that follows will supply its own momentum.
I am offering my services to review and coordinate a presentation to Ms. Winfrey because I know how to keep the message focused and bulletproof. We cannot afford to be distracted by minutia or a myriad of theories. The last thing we need is to talk about a suspicious flash on a wing when we have authentic videos of the collapse of a 47 story building along with a confession about its destruction by its owner.
So, to those of you who seek the truth, and to those of you who suspect the truth and to those of you who know the truth about 9/11, I ask your help. Send out an SOS to Oprah Winfrey. Imagine if she were to receive tens of thousands of requests for a series of shows that would reveal the evidence that has been accrued over these years.
Please take five minutes of your time to send a message to the Oprah Winfrey Show, and let her know that you want a show about 9/11. And if you choose to do so, please add that I’d be happy to appear as a representative of the Truth Community. Here’s where you can type in your suggestion for a future show:
Think about it! Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLIES.org
9/11 news e-mailed to you daily! - JOIN the TvNewsLies headlines mailing list.
Terri Schiavo: March 31, 2006 Terri Schiavo's Family Fights Onward
Last year Bobby Schindler spoke passionately and with emotional charge, still carrying the pain and grief that followed the public dehydration of his sister and yet describing his hope and vision for the future:
Part I - Terri Schiavo's Life and Death
Part II - Terri Schiavo and the Culture of Death Movement
Part III - Legalized Killing: The PVS Diagnosis
Part IV - Terri Schiavo: Finding the AnswersRelated: The Schindlers describe in much greater detail the events leading to Terri's death in A Life that Matters.
Posted by plb at March 31, 2006 05:55 AM
Subscribe with Bloglines Prior Articles:
Does Michael Schiavo Know What Terri Wanted? Does He Care? - Mar 31, 2006
Terri Schiavo: Finding the Answers - Mar 31, 2006
Faithmouse Remembers Terri Schiavo - Mar 30, 2006
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation Launched - Mar 30, 2006
Still Waiting for Justice to be Served - Mar 30, 2006
Michael Schiavo Joins Pat Campbell - Mar 30, 2006
Schindler Family - 'We've Moved On' - Mar 29, 2006
Controlling Terri Schiavo - Mar 29, 2006
Hillary Clinton Is On The Wrong Side of History
By Chuck Baldwin
The Covenant News ~ March 31, 2006
In an attempt to justify massive illegal immigration to this country, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) completely mischaracterized the Biblical story of The Good Samaritan. Obviously, there is nothing unique about politicians misusing the Scriptures. What the average politician knows about the Word of God could fit into a thimble. And that goes for Republicans as well as Democrats!Specifically, Mrs. Clinton voiced her opposition to a House measure subjecting illegal aliens and those who hire them to criminal penalties saying it "is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably Jesus Himself."However, there is absolutely nothing about Jesus' parable that remotely relates to the subject of illegal immigration. Absolutely nothing! The story of The Good Samaritan is simply a lesson in Christian compassion.
The Good Samaritan was willing to stop and help a man who had been beaten and left for dead. Jesus compared the actions of the Good Samaritan with those of a priest and a Levite who walked by the dying man and refused to help. What in the world does that have to do with illegal immigration? Nothing!However, if one wants to examine the Scriptures to find teachings relevant to the subject of illegal immigration, he can certainly do so. Let's start with Nahum chapter three.The prophet Nahum warned Israel that their stubbornness and disobedience to God was evidenced by the fact that "the gates (borders, ports, entry ways) of thy land shall be set wide open unto thine enemies: the fire shall devour thy bars." (Nahum 3:13) In this passage, the prophet made it clear that open gates or borders, which allowed enemies easy access to a nation, constitute an imminent threat to any nation. How right he was!Furthermore, Moses told the children of Israel in very clear and concise language,
"Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark." (Deut. 19:14) "Landmark" refers to territory, boundary, or border. Moses further declared, "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark." (Deut. 27:17)National borders or boundaries are extremely important to the security and survival of any nation! In fact, the Bible promotes nationhood and condemns internationalism!To the Old Testament nation of Israel, Moses said, "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people." (Deut. 32:8) Notice that God "separated the sons of Adam." God "set the bounds of the people."That God has separated nations and expects them to function independently of other nations is also seen in the New Testament. Read the inspired author, Dr. Luke: "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds (boundaries, borders) of their habitation." (Acts 17:26)National boundaries are divinely ordained. Nationhood is divinely ordained. Independent governance is divinely ordained.
On the other hand, internationalism, globalism, multiculturalism, etc., is not of God.Certainly, God instructed His people to be compassionate to "strangers." (See Deut. 10:19; Exod. 22:21.) And no nation has been more compassionate, more understanding, and more tolerant of "strangers" (i.e. non-citizens) than the United States of America!For the duration of our nation's existence, America has allowed millions of immigrants to become U.S. citizens. However, for the very sake of our country's survival, immigration must be lawful and respectful. The immigrant is expected to obtain citizenship in accordance with our country's laws. Also, the total number of new immigrants must be carefully monitored and regulated in order to maintain the health and stability of our culture and economy. Furthermore, the aspiring immigrant-citizen must be expected to assimilate into the foundational fabric and spirit of America.
Listen to the words of President Theodore Roosevelt: "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." (Jan. 3, 1919)However, those who advocate amnesty, guest worker status (which is just another name for amnesty), or other types of legalization for illegal aliens are promoting something much different from both the Scriptural and historical models.
If the people of the United States allow G. W. Bush and Hillary Clinton to get their way on illegal immigration, America's demise will be faster than anyone can possibly imagine!Already, more than 20 million illegal aliens live in the United States. In fact, according to The Center for Immigration Studies, three-fourths of all U.S. population growth stems from (mostly) illegal immigration.There is more. According to the Bureau of Justice, 29% of all federal inmates are illegal aliens. And according to statistics provided by the House of Representatives, illegal aliens cost state and local governments more than $13 billion per year.Let's face reality: illegal aliens are criminals! They broke our laws to come here. They break our laws to stay here. Furthermore, the employers that hire illegal aliens are criminals! Illegal aliens do not save money for Americans; they cost money, and a lot of it!America is a nation of law. The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution.
Nowhere does the Constitution allow for illegal aliens. There is nothing in our laws, our history, or our traditions that allows for illegal immigration!Illegal aliens not only trample our nation's laws, weaken our economy, burden our local and state governments, they also spit in the face of those many thousands of honest and honorable people from all over the world who attempt to lawfully immigrate to our country!I have many personal friends who have either recently become U.S. citizens or who are yet in the process of becoming U.S. citizens. Each of them is a honest, hard working person who desires to become an AMERICAN. They are not trying to create another Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Zimbabwe, England, or Honduras here in America. They simply want to be an AMERICAN, just like Teddy Roosevelt explained.Yet, now we are being asked to repudiate our laws, compromise the decency and character of our people, and jeopardize our very security just to allow millions of lawless people to invade our country!
I say, NO WAY!Opposing illegal immigration is not un-Christian, and it is not un- American. Neither does opposing illegal immigration make one a racist or a fascist!Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of Scripture and on the wrong side of American history. So is G. W. Bush and a majority of U.S. Senators!America must secure it's borders! We must make a concerted effort to deport all illegal aliens found to be here. We must severely punish any American company or employer who knowingly hires illegal aliens.
Furthermore, we must send a clear and convincing message to Mexican President Vicente Fox that if he does not start effectively policing his northern border, we will consider him a terrorist and treat him accordingly!And there is one more thing: we must evict every senator or representative from Washington, D.C., who refuses to protect our nation's borders and who aids and abets illegal immigration in any shape, form, or fashion! And we must do it now!
Chuck Baldwin Live
17. Bush claims faith is not under attack.
Bush said … he does not think that faith is under attack by culture at large ...Presidents must get the best mind-altering drugs on the black market! Someone tell this idiot about Judge Roy Moore, General Boykins, Indianapolis Baptist Temple, and the Philly Five (among many other examples)!
MARCH 30, 2006. Below you will find excerpts from an article by Thom Hartmann on the subject of illegal immigration. To read the whole piece, go to CommonDreams.org. Hartmann argues that illegal immigration, in its present scope, is destroying America's middle class. He also points out (and this is largely ignored by those currently running the "debate") that labor unions have been decimated as a result of illegal immigration.
Those unions, and the people who originally fought for the right of workers to organize---and who sometimes died in the process---were the driving force behind the rise of the middle class in this country. Once the most visible figure in the American labor movement, Caesar Chavez actually opposed illegal immigration and fought against it, states Hartmann. What we are now witnessing (and these are my words, not Hartmann's), with the national protests advocating unlimited open borders, is a collision of several agendas and blueprints for the future---not the least of which is the aim of the Roman Catholic Church to expand its congregation by millions in the US. The Church bases its power, in part, on the ability to increase its numbers in every possible nation. For others, completely throwing open the gates into the US is a war of liberation, in which the territories once taken from Mexico by the US government are returned. A variation of that is: "The US is a terminal force of evil and should be destroyed and re-constituted." Everybody's coming to this party. Agri-businesses and construction corporations want more immigrants who will work for less. Racists want to "preserve white blood" by closing the borders.
Drug cartels want easy access for their products. Facade-liberals want to remain politically correct on issues of "human rights." Globalists want to flood every nation with immigrants and reduce countries to a level of need in which the only apparent solution is world governance/management from Above. A great deal of the problem could be solved creatively by building a wide swath of producing farms across the southern border inside Mexico. Thus, many people in Mexico trying to enter the US would encounter a source of food, work, and housing. But of course this is too useful, and it contravenes the elite oligarchy to the South, which is all about control and sustaining poverty and draining every peso into its own coffers. We are currently witnessing a classic op of pitting Americans against Mexicans, with the aim, as usual, of further destabilizing the US. In this, both groups are pawns being squeezed and prodded to move to extreme positions against each other. In such a volatile atmosphere, all attempts at utilizing imagination to invent multiple and happy outcomes for everyone are swept aside. It's business as usual. It's the world as usual.
Published on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Today's Immigration Battle - Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind) by Thom Hartmann
...Both the corporatists and the racists are fond of the mantra, "There are some jobs Americans won't do." It's a lie. Americans will do virtually any job if they're paid a decent wage. This isn't about immigration - it's about economics. Industry and agriculture won't collapse without illegal labor, but the middle class is being crushed by it. The reason why thirty years ago United Farm Workers' Union (UFW) founder Caesar Chávez fought against illegal immigration, and the UFW turned in illegals during his tenure as president, was because Chávez, like progressives since the 1870s, understood the simple reality that labor rises and falls in price as a function of availability. As Wikipedia notes:
"In 1969, Chávez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valley to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal aliens as temporary replacement workers during a strike. Joining him on the march were both the Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. Chávez and the UFW would often report suspected illegal aliens who served as temporary replacement workers as well as who refused to unionize to the INS." Working Americans have always known this simple equation: More workers, lower wages. Fewer workers, higher wages. Progressives fought - and many lost their lives in the battle - to limit the pool of "labor hours" available to the Robber Barons from the 1870s through the 1930s and thus created the modern middle class. They limited labor-hours by pushing for the 50-hour week and the 10-hour day (and then later the 40-hour week and the 8-hour day). They limited labor-hours by pushing for laws against child labor (which competed with adult labor). They limited labor-hours by working for passage of the 1935 Wagner Act that provided for union shops. And they limited labor-hours by supporting laws that would regulate immigration into the United States to a small enough flow that it wouldn't dilute the unionized labor pool. As Wikipedia notes:
"The first laws creating a quota for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers." Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work. At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways. Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as Caesar Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy. ...The current Directors of Wal-Mart are smiling. Meanwhile, the millions of American citizens who came to this nation as legal immigrants, who waited in line for years, who did the hard work to become citizens, are feeling insulted, humiliated, and conned. Shouldn't we be compassionate? Of course.
But there is nothing compassionate about driving down the wages of any nation's middle class. It's the most cynical, self-serving, greedy, and sociopathic behavior you'll see from our "conservatives." There is nothing compassionate about being the national enabler of a dysfunctional oligarchy like Mexico. An illegal workforce in the US sending an estimated $17 billion to Mexico every year - second only in national income to that country's oil revenues [and street-drug revenues--JR] - supports an antidemocratic, anti-worker, hyperconservative administration there that gleefully ships out of that nation the "troublesome" Mexican citizens - those lowest on the economic food-chain and thus most likely to present "labor unrest" - to the USA. Mexico (and other "sending nations") need not deal with their own social and economic problems so long as we're willing to solve them for them - at the expense of our middle class. Democracy in Central and South America be damned - there are profits to be made for Wal-Mart! Similarly, there is nothing compassionate about handing higher profits (through a larger and thus cheaper work force) to the CEOs of America's largest corporations and our now-experiencing-record-profits construction and agriculture industries... But if illegal immigrants won't pick our produce or bus our tables won't our prices go up? (The most recent mass-emailed conservative variation of this argument, targeting paranoid middle-class Americans says:
"Do you want to pay an extra $10,000 for your next house?") The answer is simple: Yes. But wages would also go up, and even faster than housing or food prices. And CEO salaries, and corporate profits, might moderate back to the levels they were during the "golden age of the American middle class" between the 1940s and Reagan's declaration of war on the middle class in the 1980s. We saw exactly this scenario played out in the US fifty years ago, when unions helped regulate entry into the workforce, 35 percent of American workers had a union job, and 70 percent of Americans could raise a family on a single, 40-hour-week paycheck. All working Americans would gladly pay a bit more for their food if their paychecks were both significantly higher and more secure. ...Every nation has an obligation to limit immigration to a number that will not dilute its workforce, but will maintain a stable middle class - if it wants to have a stable democracy. ...Without a middle class, any democracy is doomed. And without labor having - through control of labor availability - power in relative balance to capital/management, no middle class can emerge. America's early labor leaders did not die to increase the labor pool for the Robber Barons or the Walton family... end of Hartmann excerpts Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice" (co-authored with Lamar Waldron). His next book, due out this autumn, is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It." JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Neocon Forever War Plan Creeps Forward
Kurt Nimmo March 30 2006
If you believe the line towed by the corporate media, a line manufactured in the deep recesses of the Pentagon, the United States stumbled into Iraq based on “intelligence failures.” According to Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post, former CIA analyst and PNAC conspirator Reuel Marc Gerecht, writing under the pen name Edward G. Shirley, tells us the CIA has “grown intellectually dishonest” and the intelligence the agency produced is “often nearly worthless.” Because of this, the neocons created the Office of Special Plans (OSP), managed by the Leo Strauss scholar Abram Shulsky, and offered up their own “intelligence,” mostly gleaned from the overactive imagination of the convicted embezzler Ahmed Chalabi and the so-called “Iraqi chemical engineer” (and the brother of a top lieutenant of Chalabi) colorfully nicknamed Curveball. It is important to note that Chalabi’s lies and fabrications were used by Shulsky’s OSP—and subsequently fed to an eager shill, New York Times columnist Judith Miller, for wide dissemination—because a key tenet of the Straussian philosophy is the necessity of deception.
“Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical—divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow,” writes Jim Lobe. “But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders” who “are fit to rule” because they “realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right—the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.” For the Straussian neocons, it is perfectly natural for the “elite” to deceive the “inferior” masses with scary fairy tales about weapons of mass destruction and cave dwelling Muslim terrorists. In fact, the scam worked famously.
Recall the lie that the Iraqis would welcome the United States, showering its soldiers with rose petals. Of course, the Straussian neocons knew this would never happen and, in fact, it would have been counterproductive to their ultimate plan—the implementation of the “clash of civilizations,” the generational war against Islam, root and branch. As a scant glance at the headlines demonstrates, the Straussian neocons are working on the next phase of their plan—the violent “sectarian” balkanization of Iraq and the spreading of the flames of war and misery elsewhere in the Middle East. As the latest outrage reveals—the murder of Muslim worshippers at a Shia mosque in Baghdad—the neocons are doing all they can to turn the Shia majority against the occupation and thus reduce Iraq to a smoldering ruin, or more of a smoldering ruin than it is already, thanks to our “elite rulers” and their “Machiavellian wisdom,” as Michael Doliner describes it.
In order to muck up the delicate situation in Iraq even more, the Straussian neocon cardboard cut-out president, George W. Bush, has “made it clear that he does not want Ibrahim al-Jaafari to remain prime minister of Iraq … a move likely to increase hostility between the US and the Shia community,” according to the Independent. “Friction between the Americans and the Shia, who make up 60 per cent of Iraq’s 27 million population, escalated sharply after at least 16 Shi’ites were killed in the al-Mustafa mosque by Iraqi and American Special Forces on Sunday night. Many Shia believe that the US was shocked by, and is not ready to accept, the success of the Shia Alliance in the election on 15 December.” No doubt the Straussian neocons realize the “prolonged negotiations on forming a new national unity government” have “served to underline the fissures dividing Shia, Sunni and Kurds,” the very keystone of the neocon effort to form three Bantustans based along ethnic and religious lines.
According to Justin Raimondo, “the U.S. knew perfectly well what it was doing when it charged into Iraq, guns blazing. They knew the Sunnis and Shi’ites would soon be at each other’s throats, they anticipated the insurgency and the depth of Iranian influence in post-war Iraq…. and that’s just what the neoconservatives in the administration were hoping for. Phase two of their war to ‘liberate’ the Middle East is about to begin—and it promises to be far bloodier, and to encompass a much bigger battlefield,” including Iran and Syria, to name but two. “As American forces begin to take on the Shi’ites in Iraq, and Iran is drawn into the conflict, this new turn … could not be more ominous. If you thought the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a major military production, with more shock and awe than anyone was prepared to withstand, then wait until you get a gander at what’s coming next. All I can say is: fasten your seat belts, because it’s going to be a very bumpy ride.”
Indeed. Of course, the naysayers will complain about the obvious fact the United States does not have the manpower—or for that matter the money—to take on Iran, Syria, the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and other Shia factions across the Middle East who will naturally be drawn into a protracted conflict when the Iraqi Shia finally go into the streets to battle the occupation in earnest.
“Paradoxically, Straussians do think that Cindy Sheehan’s son Casey died for a noble cause, the transformation of the United States of America into the Straussian State,” explains Michael Doliner. As Shadia Dury points out, the Straussian ideal is not only about transforming the Muslim Middle East—it is also about transforming American society. Like the Nazi Jurist Carl Schmitt and the Hegelian Alexandre Kojève, Strauss “understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups willing to fight each other to the death… In short, they all thought that man’s humanity depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only perpetual war can overturn the modern project with its emphasis on self- preservation and creature comforts…. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists willing to fight and die for their God and country.”
“The real question is not whether the American military can topple Hussein’s regime, but whether the American public has the stomach for imperial involvement of a kind we have not known since the United States occupied Germany and Japan,” wrote the Straussian neocon Lawrence F. Kaplan prior to Bush’s invasion based on deception. Soon enough, we may be told—as tankers aflame block the crucial Strait of Hormuz, bottlenecking access to the most important substance in the world, oil—that we must donate our children or ourselves and “fight and die” for “God and country,” or at least to preserve our way of life, even as the Straussian neocons work behind the scenes to destroy it and elevate themselves to the status of Machiavellian princes.
*This debate is cordial and interesting. This is what many in Freemasonry believe in. His words are found here.
Masonic Traveler: Thanks for the reply back. I very much enjoy the spirited debate and analysis, with someone as convicted as yourself. You are absolutely right, it is a free country, and as such, all opinions are valid, as are all faiths.
Response: It took me a while to make my response. I enjoy debates as well. I’ve debated many Freemasons before. I’m smarter and more intelligent now than I’ve been then. Well, we both agree that it’s a free country and I have a right to disagree with you and you have a right to be deceived and join Freemasonry. All opinions aren’t necessary all valid. For example, if I had the opinion that killing an innocent person is justm, that is an invalid opinion since innocent life deserves not death. There are universal truths found in many opinions though. Do you believe that all faiths are valid? If that is true, then you are wrong. Many faiths have extreme and illogical beliefs like pagans assigning divine qualities to nature or people worshipping a cow.
Masonic Traveler: First to presume your righteousness over someone else’s is wrong. Because you are of the opinion that God is on your side, and your interpretation of the bible is factual and correct is a huge presumption. What makes you right, but you think God told you so? How did he tell you, through messages in the scriptures that only you and a few others could decipher? Why didn't he tell it to everyone? Why just you?
Response: I never presume that I have righteousness over anyone else. I did say that there are absolutes in the world and not all religions are valid. Well, do you know how God is on our side? It’s by if our agenda is in accordance to the word of God. Again, you talk about the interpretation of the Bible. The fact is that tons of parts of the Bible don’t need elaborate interpretations. Tons of passages of the Bible are easy to understand like fornication being wrong (I Corinthians 6:9-11), God created man in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and other concepts. This isn’t hard to know. You don’t need to have a college degree to understand the Bible at all. The next part of your words is silly. The Bible says perfectly that it gives human beings instruction so man can be approved of. The Bible in the New Testament has almost 25,000 copies and is the most preserved ancient document in human history. It is confirmed by science and many archaeological discovers. It set much of the moral course of America.
Masonic Traveler: Swearing death oaths is not taking the lords name in vain. There is no vanity in it, no spiritual gain to it. It is an act of solemnity that is a personal choice. Again, who are you to say that it is wrong, because the way you believe, you feel, is the way everyone should believe? Sounds fascist.
Response: Swearing death oath is taking the Lord’s name in vain. God never called people to kill other human beings if you violate the Masonic oath (even if it’s not literal, but solely symbolic). First, you know the Bible says not to kill and second Christ said these words:
“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Matthew 5: 33-37)
You call killing people if you violate an oath solemn. If that’s your version of solemnity, then I feel sorry for you. It is wrong. You seem to have a problem with moral absolutes. Again, death oaths are wrong, because it is wrong to threaten death against innocent human life. It is wrong, because the oath falsely won’t call the Light the Light of Jesus Christ, but a Masonic Light. It is not fascist to show my opinion. It isn’t fascist to warn people. I’m not a fascist. If you want to understand real fascism, look at Waco where the government and foreign troops killed men, women, and children in violation of Posse Comitatus. See the Chinese using executed body parts for cosmetic products. You need to look at the crisis in Dhafur. That's real fascism. Many Christians and religious folks assign wrong doing all of the time and this is normal.
Masonic Traveler: The all Seeing Eye is a relatively recent addition to Freemasonry, added sometime in the last 150 years or so. It is more representative of the concept of an all seeing God rather than a pagan symbol. Same as the pentagram. Though these symbols have been devices of Freemasonry for many years, they are recent additions. Much of the symbology of Freemasonry spawned from the Victorian age as members tried to give symbolic meaning to the ideas of the fraternity. You mention that Washington DC has man of "those symbols", but if you look closely, those symbols evolved over time through all of Europe to be deposited eventually into the ideas of a "New Republic" that was started as America. The only occult meanings put into them are from the simple minded who need to see it.
Response: The All Seeing may be used by Freemasonry recently and I trust your information since you’re a Mason yourself. On the other hand, even you know that the All Seeing Eye was utilized by ancient Egypt to represent the sun god Horus. This was why Moses and the Israelites rejected Egyptian paganism since they assign divine characteristics to mere creations of God. The All Seeing Eye originally was a pagan symbol along with the Pentagram. The All Seeing Eye of God isn’t the eye of God since God was never referred as a single eye, neither a single eye inside a triangle from the Holy Scriptures. Many New Agers use the Single Eye in their precepts. Sources like John Daniel’s Scarlet and the Beast, 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Freemason Albert Pike, Thomas Milton Stewart’s “The Symbolism of the Gods of the Egyptians and the Light They Throw on Freemasonry” prove that the All Seeing Eye is from the Ancient Mystery Religions meaning the Eye of Horus. As for the Victorian Age, I take your word from it, but many of Masonic symbols originated from the Ancient Mysteries also. Even Masons admit to that. D.C. does have those symbols of a Pentagram, Compass, etc. That’s admitted, so it isn’t a fantasy. The Inverted Pentagram has blatant roots to the occult. The Pentagram was used by the Babylonian, Greeks, and other civilizations for thousands of years. D.C. also has the Washington Monument representing the sun god and other images from pagan religions.
Masonic Traveler: The intolerance is in passing judgment, which in this case is your calling something evil and sinful. Because YOU think it is. I would question you further; do you think Jews are evil because they don't believe Christ is the Messiah? Do you think Muslims are evil for praying to Allah, and not believing what you do? That's where the intolerance comes from. It is intolerant to call someone evil for his or her faith, what ever it may be. To say they are wrong and going to hell for it is NARROW MINDED. You can dissent with other faiths, but to call them wrong, only shows your intolerance. You do have a First amendment Right to spew what your faith is, but to insist that others adhere to it, or your version of God will send them to Hell is intolerant. It's casting judgment, of which I'm sure you have half dozen scriptures on, but it's still imposing a matter of faith onto someone else. How this ties back to Freemasonry is that it accepts men of all faiths, all acknowledging God through their own faiths.
Response: I see that you still have the distorted definition of intolerance. Intolerance is hatred of someone because they have differences. I don't hate anyone because they are different. I hate evil and sin alone. I’m sorry, but calling certain things evil and sinful is normal for us humans. For example, I call abortion evil. I call murder evil. I call theft and cheating evil as well. If you don't like that, then you're misguided. As for judgment, judgment isn’t as monolith as you believe it to be. I can judge righteous judgment as Christ said in John 7:24. Judging corruption as evil is normal and justified as well. The concept of judging and judgment is not a monolith. Of course, we can’t judge every minute detail in life, but we are to hate evil. That’s common sense. I believe any Jewish person is evil when they involved themselves in any illegal or morally corrupt activity. If they don’t believe in the Messiah or Muslim pray to Allah, they are deluded people.
I have a right to believe in this. I never called anyone evil because of their faith. I call people wrong when they follow a false faith, there’s a difference. People have a right to call people faiths as wrong. Where did you get dissent as intolerance? Also, never do I condone forcing people to follow what I believe in. I never accept forced conversion at all. The bible is rather clear on Hell, regardless of your compromise on it. If you don’t accept the Word of God on Hell, then you can move on. I know what Freemasonry believes. Freemasonry is Universalism and you admitted to this by accepting men of all faiths and claiming that all men can go to heaven if they peacefully follow certain monotheistic religions.
Masonic Traveler: Obviously, this aspect is beyond you. You look only to the bible as a true and unaltered text of God's word, scribed by men of divine sanction. Bu how do you know that? What makes that true? Do you just believe that? Is it faith alone? What about before there was a finished bible, what did Christians have to go on then?
Response: I knew you would question the inspiration of the Word of God. My aspect of disagreeing with false religions is within me friend. I’m just a guy who’s not into the Universialist/One World Religion crowd. I look to the Bible as the word of God that’s accurately translated spanning thousands of years. I know it’s the word of God and true for tons of reasons. Let’s look at some facts shall we. I don’t talk about the OT much, because even the skeptics admit that the Massoretic texts involving the OT are very accurate. The New Testament is the most documented ancient source in history with about 24,600 copies (as proven by Let Us Reason Ministries). Scholars find that there is 99.99% free of significant variance in the NT. This was admitted by the great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson. Ancient documents like the Iliad and Homer have hundreds of years before their first copy is found.
The NT Bible has its first copy found in about 64 A.D. with the Magdelean Papyrus, which is less than 35 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Sir David Dalrymple says that all of the early church writings have every quote from the OT except 11 verses. So, yes, I’m very comfortable in believing the accuracy of the word of God. Christians used the OT before the NT was created. The Old Testament was created in that time as you know. The NT was developed by consensus among the early Church and NT Bible were formed as early as 147 A.D. with the Peshitta. 157 AD. The Old Latin Vulgate (Old Itala) was created. From 185-220 AD, Origen, born in Alexandria mentions all of the Books of the OT and NT. He makes over 18,000 citations.-250 AD was when the Sadhidic version was created from Upper Egypt. I have faith in God. I trust the Bible because of its accuracy, none controversial on its origin, thousands of copies, accurate archaelogical and scientific information, and other reasons. People died, so we can read it and I will not diminish the courage of men who preserved it like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Coverdale, and others. That's real.
Masonic Traveler: As some have written about Freemasonry as a religion, in many aspects they are correct. Freemasonry is an institution governed by faith of its members, but that faith is not the basis for their meeting. Neither is the focus prayer to a deity. The prayers in lodge are ceremonial but still solemn and true. They stand to recognize God through a universal prayer or recognition. If you want to use the idea that because prolific writers of Freemasonry set the tone, could I not use that premise to say that Christianities prolific speakers and preachers stand to represent the Christian ethos? So then, Pat Roberts is professing the true nature of Christ in wanting to Assassinate foreign dignitaries, and Catholic priests stand to represent all Christians as pedophiles? Because some people write or do something does not make them the ultimate spokesman for a group. How many religious leaders stood to defend segregation and racism? Were they right in their Christian values? Did they truly speak for God?
Response: I’m glad you admit to some religious aspects of Freemasonry. No Freemason that I’ve debated admitted to this at all. Freemason may not focus a prayer to a deity, but one of its requirements is to believe in a deity. Masonry having altar, prayers, the requirement to believe in one God, an universalistic attitude toward monotheistic religions, and other facts do denote Freemasonry as a Srythentic Religion. It's interesting to note that 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Mackey admitted that Freemasonry is a Religion. Mackey wrote that:
"...But the religion of Freemasonry is not sectarian It admits men of every creed within its hospitable bosom, rejecting none and approving none for his peculiar faith. It is not Judaism, though there is nothing in it to offend a Jew; it is not Christianity, but there is nothing in it repugnant to the faith of a Christian. Its religion is that general one of nature and primitive revelation—handed down to us from some ancient and Patriarchal Priesthood—in which all men may agree and in which no men can differ..."
You can believe in Universal prayer if you want. Again, you love to bash Christian by citing inaccuracies. That isn’t so intolerant Traveler. Ha ha ha ha !!!!!!! I thought you wanted me to be so tolerance friend. Well, let’s dig into facts shall we. Many Christian men, women, and children made great contributions in science, math, civil rights, history, etc. You know this and if I’ve list many of them, it would last many pages.
Many Christians are great speakers. Pat Robertson is wrong and just because a man profess to claim Christ’s teaching, doesn’t mean he is not immune from mistake. Pat made a mistake and he apologized for it. Pat is right about some moral issues though. Many Catholic priests are pedophiles and I don’t agree with Catholicism. That’s their business. You seem to forget the case of William Morgan. Morgan was a Mason, left, and he was a righteous man. He wrote a book exposing Freemasonry yet Masons killed them in following their death oath. This was in the case of Pat Robertson wherefore Pat violated the Word of God. Morgan’s death was in total accordance with the death oaths of Masonry. Charles Finney’s work validated the Masonic death of the heroic patriot William Morgan. That death was wrong. D. L. Moody is another man who disagreed with Freemasonry and was a strong Christian. Many Christians stood to fight against segregation and racism. You know this. John Quincy Adams stood up against racism and opposed slavery. Wilberforce in England stood up against segregation and slavery and England banned slavery on the part of his efforts. Many churches stood up against segregation in South. You’re forgetting something. Many Masonic Lodges for years segregated against blacks to come into the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite only accepts blacks recently.
Also, the Prince Hall Lodge was formed to disagree with the racism among many Scottish Rite members. Many Prince Hall Lodge people include Jesse Jackson, Collin Powell (33rd Degree), Scottie Pippen, Andrew Young, and Kweisi Mfume, and Julian Bond. The Prince Hall Lodge infiltrated many black churches. Even the B’nai B’rith lodge discriminates and only allows Jews to join it. That isn’t tolerance. Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!! You shouldn’t have brought up this issue. Many leaders of the segregationist movement were Masons in the 1960’s like Governors George Wallace of Alabama (he changed later in his life), Orval Forbus of Arkansas, and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. Strom Thummad and Robert Bryd are Masons and each once supported segregtion. Bryd used to be a Klansman. Activities by Pat were wrong and it violated the Word of God, since they don’t speak for God in that instance. It’s as simple as that. Many Christians are fighting for truth like Cutting Edge Ministries, Liberty to Captives Ministries and other conservative Christians. We don't agree with Bush's agenda plus we stand up for our beliefs. Also, you cite nothing on many Christians opposing evil with great character. http://www.cuttingedge.org/fmcorner.html is a link that can help you demit from Masonry. I hope you leave.
Masonic Traveler: The last point I want to make is on symbolism. You mentioned the obelisks, and pentagrams, and I spoke of them earlier, but reversing the table do you celebrate Christmas with a Christmas tree and presents? Why, there is nothing in the bible that says Christ was born under an evergreen. Do you or children you know hunt for Easter eggs? More paganism in society I suppose you would say. Lastly, did Christ say to worship me though the form of an unequal cross? More symbolism, but from my recollection, Christ never said anything about worshiping him through the symbol. Symbols abound and when TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT can easily be misconstrued and interpreted.
Response: I used to celebrate Christmas. Now, I reject it as pagan filth. I already know about Christmas and I reject Easter. I do believe in celebrating the resurrection of Christ. Just because paganism exists in society, doesn’t mean we are to accept it. Just like crimes exist all across the whole, doesn’t mean we are to participate in it. Also, I don’t wear a cross. I don’t worship through a symbol or image at all. Symbols exists, but not all symbols denote positive attributes. Symbols are to represent another thing, but I don't obsess over them constantly or worship them.
Masonic Traveler: I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
Response: These are my thoughts backed up by history. It’s kind of ironic that you try to mock the concept of a “new world order” and “one world government” yet people like George H. W. Bush, Paul Warburg, Gorbachev, and others talked and supported a new world order or one world government for many decades. That's very real and it isn't fiction. Even Henry Kissinger recently promoted a New World Order in response to Bush’s visit to India. The New World Order is not a myth at all. Bush is pushing for the Pan American Union merging our economies and political structures with Mexico and Canada. I do respect Charlie Sheen questioning the offical story of 9/11 as well. I'm moving forward and exposing torture, exposing evil, disagreeing with execessive federal power, and standing up for our civil liberties. Freemasonry is just contrary to Biblical Christianity on so many levels.
By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)
Dedicated to William Morgan.